sign in sign up
<<
Home , Briones Regional Park, Castro Cove, Castro Creek, Keller Beach, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Pablo Bay

Water Contamination in creeks and bays Photo: Tom McGuire Photo: Tom Wildcat Creek in Richmond

am way more careful when I am out with a group by the water. It is hard. You do not want them to be afraid but if they don’t know the reality, they could get themselves into trouble,” explains Doria Robinson, who “I leads creek tours and restoration projects in Richmond. Before she tells people about the water contamina- tion, they “need to establish that connection first, a personal commitment to the space before you get into the troubles, because it can bring you down so much to think, ‘Why is my creek, shoreline so torn up and other people’s aren’t so?’”

From creeks to bays, West Contra Costa County is home Much of the water has become contaminated by industri- to many bodies of water (see Table 1 for a list of West al and municipal facilities that are often located adjacent County creeks) and is situated within the lower portion to or on West County’s creeks and bays. For example, of seven watersheds. These watersheds are areas of land a sewage treatment plant, Chevron’s industrial holding where all the water under them or draining into them ponds and refinery, and a landfill all border the 300-acre goes into the same place, whether it is to a stream, lake, at the mouth of the San Pablo and Wildcat or ocean. Creek watershed.

Urban waterways provide recreational opportunities In addition, urban run-off is a major source of contami- for nearby residents. They serve as important sources nation in the Bay.4 Urban run-off is the water running of wildlife in urban areas, a break in miles of concrete, from our yards, streets, and buildings every day that car- and support birds, fish, greenery,1 and oftentimes local ries pesticides, heavy metals, and other chemicals into our subsistence fishers.2 Healthy creeks and bays also help to waterways. Toxins from both urban run-off and industrial filter pollutants and reduce flooding, erosion, and organic discharges can impair the growth of plants and insects material buildup.3 Yet most of West County’s creeks are along creeks, cause declines in marine life, and create paved over; of those that are not, many have become so health risks for people.5 polluted they are no longer safe for residents to swim,

I ndicators fish, or even play in.

40 Pacific Institute Table 1: West County Creeks

Total length Creek Beginning (Headwaters) Drains into Passes through (miles)

Berkeley, at Giant Wildcat Creek 22.22 ( Regional Park San Pablo and Richmond Marsh District Land)

San Pablo Orinda, then into San Pablo San Pablo, Richmond, El 108.6 San Pablo Bay Creek Reservoir Sobrante

Richmond, San Pablo, Rheem and San Pablo Bay just south of 3.36 and 4.10 Richmond some unincorporated Garrity Creeks Point Pinole county land

Pinole Creek 46.64 San Pablo Bay Pinole

Refugio and 9.17 and 31.64 East Bay Regional Park Land San Pablo Bay Rodeo, Crockett, Hercules Rodeo Creeks

Source: Contra Costa Watershed Atlas (2003), Contra Costa Community Development Department. Inclusion of creeks is based on the Watershed Atlas, which uses USGS data. It does not include tributaries such as .

What Did Our Research Find?

The Indicators Project examined two indicators of water contamination in West County: which water bodies are According to Regional Board listings, considered contaminated, and how often industries in all of the creeks and the bays in West the area are contaminating waters. To determine which are contaminated, we used data from the County are impaired. Regional Water Quality Monitoring Board (Regional Board), the agency in charge of protecting water quality in the and in creeks and lakes. What is the evidence of water contamination in West County? To get a sense of how often industries in the area are The Regional Board is required by federal law to estab- contaminating waters, we checked data for how often, if lish water quality standards based on the ways each water at all, facilities are breaking water quality laws that have body is typically used. For instance, if an area’s designated been set by the state and federal government. This pro- use is recreational fishing, the Board must ensure that the vided information on whether or not industrial facilities fish in that water body are safe for people to eat.7 The are complying with legal limits on water contamination Regional Board then assesses which water bodies do not set under the federal Clean Water Act to regulate point meet their water quality standards and designates them as source pollution discharges.6 “impaired.”

Our analysis does not attempt to create a direct link According to Regional Board listings, all of the creeks between water contamination in local water bodies and and the bays in West County are impaired (Table 2). illegal industrial discharges. Table 3 provides more specific information on the con- taminants present in these water bodies.

MEASURING WHAT MATTERS: Water Contamination in creeks and bays 41

Table 2: Impaired Water Bodies in West County

Water body Chemical contaminants Source of contaminants

Chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin Urban run-off and drainage, direct discharges from industry, compounds, exotic species, furan dumping from boats, atmospheric deposition, municipal San Pablo Bay compounds, mercury, nickel, PCBs discharges, agriculture and natural sources, resource (polychlorinated biphenyls), selenium extraction

San Pablo Creek Diazinon Urban run-off and storm sewers Wildcat Creek Diazinon Urban run-off and storm sewers

Dieldrin (sediment); mercury (sediment); PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ) Direct discharges from Chevron refinery, urban run-off (sediment); selenium (sediment)

Chlordane; mercury; PAHs (polycyclic Urban run-off and drainage, direct discharges from industry, Central Basin (part aromatic hydrocarbons); PCBs dumping from boats, atmospheric deposition, municipal of central SF Bay) (polychlorinated biphenyls); selenium discharges, agriculture and natural sources

Pinole Creek Diazinon Urban run-off and storm sewers Diazinon Urban run-off and storm sewers

Chlordane; DDT; dieldrin; dioxin Urban run-off and drainage, direct discharges from industry, compounds; exotic species; furan dumping from boats, atmospheric deposition, municipal Central SF Bay compounds; PCBs (polychlorinated discharges, agriculture and natural sources, resource biphenyls); mercury; selenium extraction

Source: Proposed 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Retrieved 10/15/08 from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/tmdlmain.htm.

Table 3: What are the contaminants in West County waters?

Contaminant What is it?

Chlordane Pesticide that has been banned, but persists in the environment. DDT Pesticide that has been banned, but persists in the environment. Dieldrin Insecticide that has been banned, but persists in the environment.

Dioxin/furan Chemical compounds released as emissions from waste incineration and other combustion; also compounds discharged from chemical factories.

Exotic Species Animals and plants not native to an ecosystem. Heavy metal used in thermometers, dental fillings, and batteries, discharged from refineries and Mercury factories, but also present in the environment as a result of former use in mining. Nickel Naturally occurring metal.

Chemicals used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. Polychlorinated Due to health impacts, production has been stopped but they persist in the environment and leach biphenyls (PCBs) from landfills and chemical waste.

Naturally occurring mineral element in rocks and soil. Used in the electronics industry, as a nutritional Selenium feed additive for poultry and livestock, and in petroleum refineries.

Diazinon Pesticide used to control pests in soil, ornamental plants, and crops.

Chemical compounds formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other Polycyclic Aromatic organic substances. PAHs are found in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar, but a few are used Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in medicines or to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.

Source: U.S. EPA Drinking Water Contaminants, available at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/contaminants/ and Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ToxFAQs, available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html.

42 Pacific Institute How often are industrial facilities illegally discharging through October of 2008, there were 51 reporting and contaminated water? monitoring violations, and one instance where a facility The Indicators Project also looked at how many times in- was cited for failure to pay fines for a total of 52 adminis- dustrial facilities in West County violated their regulatory trative violations spread among eight facilities.8 permits by releasing more contaminants than legally al- lowed. Every industrial facility must obtain a permit from Other studies and sources of data indicate that indus- the Regional Board, called a National Pollution Dis- trial facilities in West County are contributing to water charge and Elimination Permit (NPDES), which outlines contamination. In a national study on permit violations how much wastewater a facility is allowed to discharge. from industrial facilities, Contra Costa was one of the top 25 counties in the U.S. with the most industrial facilities According to data from the Integrated Water exceeding their NPDES permits.9 It should also be noted Quality Information System for January 2005 through that these are just illegal discharges; facilities are allowed October 2008, there were a total of 19 facilities in viola- to discharge a certain amount on a regular basis. In 2005, tion of their permits, 17 of them with repeat violations for example, Shell Oil released 542,497 pounds of con- (Table 4). All of the violations listed are for illegal con- taminants into surface waters; Chevron released 430,777 taminant discharges. pounds of contaminants.10 While these releases are each individually legal, they add up to a considerable cumu- The Regional Board also issues violations for monitoring lative load of pollutants entering West County waters and reporting failures. For example, if a facility did not on a daily basis. Further, industrial facilities contribute monitor a certain chemical on a daily basis as required regularly to urban run-off—the largest source of water by law, it would receive a violation notice. From 2005 contamination in the Bay Area.

Table 4: Illegal Water Discharges for Contra Costa Industrial Facilities, 2005–2008

Facility Violations Rhodia, Inc. 1 Tesoro Refinery — Golden Eagle Waste Water Treatment Plant 1 Chevron Richmond Refinery 2 Crockett Cogeneration 2 Dow Chemical Company 2 GWF — Site I Power Plant 2 US Navy Groundwater Treatment Plant, Pt. Molate 3 West County Waste Water District 4 Mt. View Sanitary District 5 City of Pinole Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 GWF Power Systems, Site IV 10 USS POSCO Industries 11 General Chemical Waste Water Treatment Plant 13 Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant 16 PG& E Shell Pond 20 Rodeo Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant 21 Shell Martinez Refinery 25 Discovery Bay Treatment Plant 30 ConocoPhillips Refinery, Rodeo 32 Total Violations 206

Source: California Integrated Water Quality Information System

MEASURING WHAT MATTERS: Water Contamination in creeks and bays 43 What Does This Mean For West County?

Contaminated water bodies many people regularly fish there and elsewhere in West The data from the Regional Board indicates there is County. Many people eat the fish they catch, for both significant water contamination in West County, but cultural and economic reasons. One survey found 87% the sources vary greatly. The creeks of West County are of Bay Area anglers eat the fish they catch.18 California’s mostly contaminated with diazinon, a pesticide com- Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment monly used on lawns.11 The bays of West County have has issued fish advisories limiting the amount of fish a wider array of contaminants, the majority of which people should consume from the Bay because of the po- are persistent organic pollutants—including chlordane; tential health consequences.19 PCB concentrations in Bay DDT; dieldrin; PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls); and sport fish are still more than ten times higher than levels PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)—from agri- considered safe for human consumption.20 In fish tissue cultural uses, industrial discharges, and urban run-off.12 testing throughout the Bay, the highest levels of mercury Some contaminants originate with industrial discharges, were found in the Central San Francisco Bay region, just such as the mercury and PAHs in Castro Cove that are off West County’s shoreline, in rates well above a safe from former Chevron refinery operations.13 In fact, much consumption level.21 of the industry-related contaminants may have come from “legacy” pollution—pollution that occurred many Illegal industrial discharges years ago—or from a mix of both historical and contem- All of the violations in Table 4 are based on instances porary sources. For instance, the level of PCBs in the San when a facility discharged wastewater that contained Francisco Bay primarily comes from their use in electrical levels of contaminants above levels deemed healthy for equipment during the 1970s, although several companies local ecosystems and public health. Since 2005, there has in the Bay still use them.14 Most of the mercury in the been an average of almost 4.5 water quality violations per Bay is from mining operations during the Gold Rush month, based on Regional Board data alone. era.15 The second largest source is from urban run-off. It also continues to enter the Bay through both air and While these violations cannot be traced specifically to the wastewater discharges from local industries.16 data on water contamination in West County presented in this chapter, they convey a pattern of industrial pol- Mercury and PCBs are of particular concern because lution. Together, the two Indicators, which provide data they accumulate in the flesh of fish people eat and have on water contamination and data on industrial permit many health impacts, from causing cancer to neurological violations, illuminate part the complex issue of addressing disorders.17 A walk down Point Pinole pier reveals how water quality concerns of West County.

What Can We Do? From working for more protective water quality standards material centers (see Resources section). Use nontoxic to educating people on how to restore local creeks, many household cleaners, as most commercial all-purpose organizations in West County and the Bay Area offer cleaners contain dangerous chemicals. different types of solutions to our water quality problem. Help restore your local water bodies. Residents can implement solutions on several levels, in- Participate in local creek clean-up and restoration cluding limiting one’s own contribution to water contam- projects (see Resources section). ination, participating in water restoration and clean-up activities, and supporting ongoing advocacy campaigns. Support ongoing policy efforts to limit water pollution. Many organizations work to implement policies at both Limit your own contribution to water contamination. the regional and state level to protect our health and West County residents themselves can help reduce environment. One of the best ways to directly impact local 22 water contamination. Keep litter, pet waste, and policy is by attending San Francisco Regional Water debris out of street gutters and storm drains: they drain Quality Control Board meetings. Organizations such as directly to streams, rivers, and wetlands. Minimize the Baykeeper and Clean Water Action have worked at the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Dispose of used oil local level to create comprehensive contaminant limits for and antifreeze, pharmaceuticals, batteries, paints, and the San Francisco Bay, to improve the regulation of indus- other household hazardous materials at local hazardous tries, and more. (See next section for contact information.)

44 Pacific Institute Community Resources for Information and Change

City of Richmond Household Wastewater SPAWNERS (San Pablo Watershed Neighbors Web Page Education and Restoration Society) www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=170 1327 South 46th Street, Bldg. 155 Information and local resources on ways to reduce Richmond, CA 94804 household water pollution. 510.665.3538 www.spawners.net Clean Water Action Works to protect and restore . 111 New Montgomery St., Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.369.9160 1327 South 46th Street www.cleanwateraction.org 155 Richmond Field Station Helps citizens make their case for clean water to local, Richmond, CA 94804 state, and national decisionmakers and to advocate for 510.665.3546; [email protected] strong environmental policies. www.thewatershedproject.org Provides support for watershed restoration projects and North Richmond Shoreline Academy runs environmental education programs in Richmond. 100 Pine St, #1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 415.693.3000 1250 Addison Street, Suite 107 www.shorelineacademy.org Berkeley, CA 94702 A project of the Natural Heritage Institute working to 510.540.6669 restore and protect the North Richmond Shoreline for www.urbancreeks.org the benefit of local communities. Supports efforts to restore urban creeks throughout Richmond and Berkeley. 785 Market Street, Suite 850 West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste San Francisco, CA 94103 Management Services 415.856.0444 1.888.412.9277 www.baykeeper.org www.recyclemore.com Works to reverse the environmental degradation of the Provides recycling and garbage services for West past and promote new strategies and policies to protect Contra Costa County, runs a Household Hazardous the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. Waste Collection facility, and has information on how to reduce household pollution. Photo: Tom McGuire Photo: Tom

Wildcat Creek in Richmond

MEASURING WHAT MATTERS: Water Contamination in creeks and bays 45 Research Methods Contaminated water bodies federal Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Our list of impaired water bodies in West Contra Costa Control Boards are required to issue NPDES permits to County is drawn from the San Francisco Regional Water all facilities discharging wastewater. Analyzing permit Quality Control Board’s 303(d) list for the San Fran- violations indicates how many facilities are in violation of cisco region, which provides an overview of water quality existing federal and state clean water laws. information in an area based on comprehensive testing of water bodies. The 303(d) list is required under the federal Our report focuses exclusively on permit violations, Clean Water Act and lists water bodies that “do not which provides only a partial picture of the extent of meet water quality standards, even after point sources of industrial contamination, as violations exclude legal pollution have installed the minimum required levels of discharges. The permits themselves can allow discharge pollution control technology.”23 levels that may be undesirable, as limits are based not only on environmental and health effects, but on the costs We used the Contra Costa Watershed Forum’s Water- of implementation to businesses. The list of contaminants shed Atlas to identify water bodies that correspond to regulated may not cover all the contaminants that are a the geographic boundaries of our research area: north of byproduct of industrial processing. Finally, all the data Interstate 580 and west of 23rd Avenue. within the CIWQS is based on reports of compliance or violations submitted by the facilities themselves, which Industrial discharges raises questions about the objectivity of the data. Our data does not set out to provide the complete picture of how many contaminants are getting into West Coun- A focus on wastewater discharges also overlooks the ty’s water bodies. We do not address the largest source of many other ways industrial facilities can contaminate contamination in the Bay—urban run-off—or each facil- water bodies. Wastewater discharges are “point source” ity’s contribution to urban run-off, or the large amount of pollution, which comes directly from one source, such contaminants that industrial facilities are legally allowed as pipes. However, “nonpoint source pollution,” which to discharge. Accessing information on industrial dis- comes from many, diffuse sources, is a large problem that charges is challenging as there is a lack of precise data. lacks clear regulation.

Because it measures direct discharges from facilities, we Another limitation in our data is the state database itself, used the State Water Resource Control Board’s Cali- as CIWQS has been the subject of significant criticism. fornia Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) to In May 2007, an independent panel reviewed the system generate reports on National Pollutant Elimination and found the CIWQS to be “a dysfunctional program on Discharge System (NPDES) permit violations for all the verge of collapse. There were serious and unresolved local, state, federal, and private facilities in Contra Costa concerns about the technical soundness of the underlying County, 2005 through 2008. In order to comply with the database design and its implementation.”24

Wildcat Creek at the Richmond Parkway and the Chevron Pier

46 Pacific Institute References

1 Woelfe-Erskine, C. L. Allen, and J. Cole, Eds. (2007). Dam Na- 14 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2008). tion: Dispatches from the Water Underground. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Total Maximum Daily Load for PCBs in San Francisco Skull Press, 187-191. Bay Staff Report for Proposed Basin Plan Amendment. San 2 Baron, S., N. LeRoy Poff, P. Angermerier, C. Dahm, P. Gleick, Francisco, CA: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control N. Hairston, Jr., R. Jackson, C. Johnston, B. Richter, and A. Board, 14. Steinman. (2003). Sustaining Healthy Freshwater Ecosystems. 15 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2006). Issues in Ecology 10: 2. Mercury in San Francisco Bay: Proposed Basin Plan Amend- 3 Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans ment and Staff Report for Revised Total Maximum Daily and Watersheds. (2005). National Management Measures Load and Proposed Mercury Water Quality Objectives. San to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Francisco, CA: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. U.S. Environmental Board, A – 9. Protection Agency, 13. 16 Ibid. (Same as above). 4 Swanson, C., A. Pawley, and P. Vorster. (2005). 2005 San Fran- 17 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (1994). cisco Bay Index. San Francisco, CA: , 9. Summary of the Chemicals of Concern found in Fish: San 5 Cohen, A. (2000). An Introduction to the San Francisco Estu- Francisco Bay Pilot Study, 1994. Retrieved October 22, 2008 ary. Oakland, CA: , San Francisco Project, from http://oehha.ca.gov/fish/nor_cal/sfpilot.html. and San Francisco Estuary Institute, 29. 18 California Department of Health Services. (2001). San Fran- 6 Leavitt, C. (2007). Troubled Water: An Analysis of 2005 Clean cisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study, General Information. Water Act Compliance. Washington, D.C.: US PIRG Educa- Oakland, CA: California Department of Health Services, tion Fund, 4. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. 7 State Water Resources Control Board. (2004). Water Quality 19 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2008). Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Guidelines for Safe Eating. California Department of Public Section 303(d) List. Sacramento, CA: 1. Health. Retrieved March 9, 2008 from http://www.oehha.org/ fish/general/sfbaydelta.html. 8 The following facilities had the following number of adminis- trative violations: ConocoPhillips Refinery, 1; Discovery Bay 20 Davis, J., F. Hetzel, and J. Oram. (2006). PCBS in SF Bay: Treatment Plant, 33; Dow Chemical Company, 1; General Impairment Assessment/Conceptual Model Report. Oakland, Chemical Waste Water Treatment Plant, 3; Pinole Wastewa- CA: Clean Estuary Partnership, ii. ter Treatment Plant, 3; Rhodia, Inc., 1; Richmond WPCP, 1; 21 San Francisco Estuary Institute. (2007). The Pulse of the Tesoro Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2. Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Water Quality in the San 9 Leavitt, C. (2007). Troubled Water: An Analysis of 2005 Clean Francisco Estuary. SFEI Contribution 532. Oakland, CA: San Water Act Compliance. Washington, D.C.: US PIRG Educa- Francisco Estuary Institute, 36. tion Fund, 10. 22 U.S. EPA. (2008). What You Can Do to Prevent NPS Pollu- 10 U.S. EPA. (2008). Toxics Release Inventory database public tion. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. reports interface, TRI Explorer. Accessed April 22, 2008 from Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.epa.gov/owow/ http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/. nps/whatudo.html; State Water Resources Quality Control Board. (2008). How You Can Help Reduce Water Pollution. 11 Ogle, S. (2005). Diazinon in San Francisco Bay: Conceptual California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved Octo- Model/Impairment Assessment. San Francisco, CA: Clean ber 20, 2008 from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/lookwhatyou- Estuary Partnership. cando.html. 12 Connor, M., J. Davis, J. Leatherbarrow, D. Yee, D. Oros, J. Ross, 23 State Water Quality Control Board. (2006). Total Maximum and C. Werme. (2008). Conceptual Model of Major Factors Daily Load Program. Accessed June 3, 2008 from http://www. Controlling the Sources, Fate and Effects of Persistent Organic swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_lists2006_epa. Pollutants in the Estuary. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco shtml. Estuary Institute, 1. 24 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. (May 13 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. (2006). 2008). Technical Report 561; Final Report of the California Castro Cove Cleanup Project Fact Sheet. Sacramento, CA: Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Review Panel. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Re- Costa Mesa, CA: Southern California Coastal Water Research trieved December 1, 2008 from www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/ Project, 1. public_notices/castro%20cove%20cleanup%20fact%20sheet%20 final.pdf.

MEASURING WHAT MATTERS: Water Contamination in creeks and bays 47